Lance Armstrong should be celebrated as a pioneer in human enhancement

Although Lance Armstrong has broken the rules, we shouldn't
be so quick to judge him. In many ways he's a pioneer in human
enhancement, and history books may forgive him, argues Professor
Andy Miah, Director of the Creative Futures Institute
at the University of the West of Scotland. You can follow him on
Twitter at @andymiah

One might think there is little left to say about Lance
Armstrong. He has been found guilty of doping. He has admitted his
guilt. His titles are being revoked. He is widely perceived to lack
remorse about what he has done. He stands a good chance of being
made bankrupt by the many legal actions that are gearing up against
him. And he is unlikely to get anywhere near an organised sports
event any time soon. However, there are good reasons to believe
that public opinion on what he has done could change in the
future.

First of all some caveats. There's no getting away from the fact
that breaking the rules is wrong. Everyone agrees that rules should
be kept to preserve the game -- unless of course they are bad
rules. Everyone agrees that there are good reasons to make
dangerous drugs and substances illegal in sports -- unless of
course they could me made safe. But, what if anti-doping rules can
be shown to increase the risks athletes take or the harm they
suffer? We'll park that for a moment while we consider how the
future may change our perception of doping, people's willingness to
do it, and the severity of the consequences.

Presently, science is working to make drugs safer; this is one
of its enduring features. It does so in a very narrowly defined
manner -- safe enough for therapy, not for use by healthy people.
Yet, tomorrow's drugs might not look anything like today's and this
principle of distinguishing between healthy or unhealthy may become
completely different.

Tomorrow's athlete will need today's doping just to remain
competitive in the extremely stressful performances we enjoy
watching. It's hard to imagine that Andy Murray would not have
wanted tougher skin to avoid blistering in Australian Open final
against Djokovic, or that any number of football players would have
been grateful of stronger tendons, not to mention bones. Human
bodies are not very well built for elite level sport. Too many
athletes have their careers ended by injury. If technology can
enhance our resilience, this would be a good thing and a sensible
step towards making ourselves better than well.

Today, cosmetic surgery can be medically justified as a form of
mutilation on the basis that it will improve an otherwise
vulnerable psychological state. Alternatively, we love the idea
that laser eye surgery might even make us see better than what is
considered humanly normal. Rather than something we worry about,
the incremental slide into enhancement through therapy is something
we rather like, so why should we worry when an athlete does
it?

The best way to repair a body in the future will be to do
something completely different than use today's synthetic drugs.
Perhaps we will up-regulate some natural substance in our body, or
even reinforce ourselves at birth, or before it. In effect, we
might do something like inoculating children at birth or putting
fluoride in tap water. These acts of enhancing human resilience are
creating generations of enhanced humans. People like you and me.
These gentle nudges to improve natural processes are fast becoming
great big shoves in the direction of human enhancement.

There is already a precedent for this. We've been modifying
nature for centuries. Even the domestic dog is a product of our
willingness to tamper with genetic heritage and, every year, flower
shows celebrate the beauty of some new transgenic species. Why on
earth should we make a fuss about doping technologies that make
athletes perform better? This is the purpose of their activity.
"But, it's unfair!" I hear you cry. So, make it legal. Give
everyone the same chance to use it and then let us focus on
monitoring the risks. It will be easier, since the substances and
techniques will be known -- best practices for optimising doping
will even be published.

If this seems unlikely, then take into account the fact that
today's scientist and doctor considers ageing as a disease that
should be treated, rather than a process that should be accepted.
Consider also the fact that we are becoming societies of
enhancement fanatics, a world where such things as Botox parties
exist

Comments

There's a lot in this article that I disagree with and it does not appear to have been written with much knowledge of cycling.

The "level playing field" argument does not stand up. Different athletes get different levels of benefits from different drugs. The doping does not equalise the talent. And richer athletes can afford better treatments, better doctors, and more of them. According to reliable accounts, Armstrong was flying in private jets for specialist treatments that few others could afford. The "anonymous" writer mentions the health risks of doping - that's what comes with trying to keep up with the rich boys and taking a risk on a cut price treatment.

The "open doped competition" argument falls on similar grounds. It would not equalise. It would encourage more outrageous risk taking and health risks would go up. And I don't want to see the most superhuman performances that science can deliver, I want to see competition based on hard work, skill and character.

"Armstrong was a pioneer" is rubbish too. He did not in the main take any new drugs, he was just more determined in his usage. And it was not in the spirit of scientific enquiry. He's not exactly writing papers on what he did and sharing the blood samples, is he?

Other commenters have already pointed out the other reason he's picked for particular criticism. Yes, he was not the only one who doped. But he didn't just lie about it. He bullied, harassed and intimidated anyone who got in his way. He destroyed careers and reputations as a matter of policy. He took prize money from those who could not or would not cheat as he did.